Whether the trial court should have ordered a Rule 20 regarding competency?
Defendant was convicted of 4th degree assault of employee of a secure treatment facility. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court violated his right to due process of law by denying his request for a Rule 20 competency evaluation. Defendant asserted 3 reasons to doubt his competency: He (1) had been civilly committed since 2007; (2) had a diagnosed mental illness; and (3) had himself questioned whether he was competent to stand trial. Noting that defendant’s commitment as a sexually dangerous person who also suffered from certain mental illnesses demonstrated that the committing court found his mental conditions inhibited his ability to control his sexual impulses, not that his mental conditions inhibited his ability to rationally consult with his attorney, understand the proceedings, or participate in his defense, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s request for a competency evaluation. Affirmed.
State v. Carlson, A21-0011, Carlton County.
Minneapolis Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.